Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 November 9

9 November 2023

EFS Facilities Services

EFS Facilities Services (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Please can you restore the page that was speedily deleted as this was a new page with new sources . It was speedily deleted without a discussion 86.98.142.14 (talk) 05:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

• The content was substantially the same as the page deleted at afd, even if the press releases used to support it were different. Endorse the G4, and, given the obvious terms of use violations here, I'd have been tempted to G11 it even without the afd. As an aside, I can't remember the last time I've seen so many crossed-out usernames in a row as I have while looking at the various incarnations of this page. —Cryptic 05:29, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Jill Ovens

There appears to be misunderstandings regarding this DRV leading to claims this is outside DRV scope. For clarity in simple terms; this is about the closing admins understanding of the discussion outcome and their rationale for closing. These flaws must be demonstrated. This is not an AfD do over. This fall squarely in point 1 of the DRV criteria.

Jill Ovens (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

It is claimed that the article passes GNG and should be kept as a result. This is not supported by the discussion or the quality of the sources the reasoning given by the closing Admin (User:Hey man im josh)is:

There's been 23 more references added, a number of which are considered reliable sources. Based on the depth of coverage in the sources, and the number and quality of sources present, there's enough WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG.

A large number of the sources are self-published, either by the subject of the article themself, a political they are or were a member of or a trade union she was an official in. A large number are passing quotes where her name is mentioned in passing or she is quoted in passing. Some are lists of candidates at an election and a list of her political party amongst many others.

Additionally, as a large number of sources are offline sources they cannot be checked by the average reader While this is not disqualifying this issue is addressed by by User:Alpha3031 here.

They asked

Chris, I've taken a look at some of the sources you've added (e.g. way we were, tech subjects at risk) but there were a fair number of them. Are you able to clarify which ones you intend to be considered towards BASIC/GNG? Not being the main topic is fine, but WP:SIGCOV still says directly and in detail in the sentence before that. More importantly, is there anything that isn't composed of quotes for the subject, "she said X, she said Y, she said Z," etc? That kind of coverage is perfectly fine for filling an article out, subject to WP:PRIMARY, but it isn't the type of thing that would support a claim for BASIC. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

This was not replied to in the discussion meaning that it has to be taken without further explanation from the person adding them as they are behind a complex registration wall as such they cannot be assessed or counted for or against the coverage of the article subject.

I will now go through the sources in turn and why they do not meet SIGCOV or pass GNG. This is as of this revision of the article (the version as at the time of filing this review and the same as at time of closure of the AfD).

• References 1, 4, 23, 24 27, and 28 - Self-published by political parties article subject was or is a member of
• References 2, 13 - Quoted in the articles and not the subject of the article
• References 3, 5, 6 - 12, 15 - 18 and 21, are covered by the section above and relate to the comments from Alpha3031
• Reference 14 - A blog written by the subject of the article
• Reference 19 - Reliable source where article subject is the subject of the article
• References 20 and 22 - Mention in passing simply for holding a party post and giving a quote, not the subject of the article
• References 25, 28 and 29 - purely lists of candidates at elections
• Reference 26 - interview for a blog.
• Reference 30 - A submission to a public consultation, which anyone could have responded to published by the Parliament of New Zealand as part of the routine publication of all individual responses to a public consultation
• Reference 31 - Reliable source where the article subject is the subject of the article on a local issue.
• Reference 32 - A blog
• References 33 and 34 are the same article and only mentioned in passing as someone's wife.

As such references 19 and 31 pass reliable independent and about the article's subject, the rest though do not pass or cannot be assessed for if they pass or not. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 03:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse If you're admitting there's already two suitable sources, then what's the point? This is purely an AfD-style argument not within the jurisdiction of DRV. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

  What an odd thing to say, surely you need more than two sources one of which is a complaint over a dog park a genuinely minor issue and one on switching party which I’ll grant is a reliable source of significance

  come on though this feels like the bar is so low the people commenting here could trip over it.

  the justification from the closer was ‘23 new sources’ which has been shown to be absurd when the sources are drilled into as they claim those ‘23 new sources’ push the article into significant coverage and into general notability

  I am feeling like I’m talking to brick walls here with the reasons and comments from people contributing here and at the original AfD. How can this cross the thresholds in anyway of being notable enough for Wikipedia.

  On a personal note the lack of information understanding here is frustrating as it seems that anything, like as little as one thing can get someone over no matter how minor it is. Even when the overwhelming rest are just passing mentions, self publication and also mentions.

  I also have no idea what you mean by “ This is purely an AfD-style argument not within the jurisdiction of DRV.” Please explain as that comes across as dismissive when the review statement focuses on the reason given by the closing admin which is erroneous (in my opinion). PicturePerfect666 (talk) 05:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

• #26 was left out of your source assessment above, if you care. (So was #21, but that's another page of the same source as #16 and #17.) —Cryptic 05:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

  I will correct this oversight. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 05:26, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

  Omissions corrected PicturePerfect666 (talk) 05:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse. DRV is a place to handle failures to follow the deletion process, not a place to re-argue the AFD because you lost. Stifle (talk) 09:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Stifle (talk) 09:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

This is in no way anything like your characterisation of ‘not a place to re-argue the AFD because you lost’

This is a good faith DRV (not a sour grapes thing as claimed) as the closing admin has (in my opinion) not followed the discussion and is fundamentally flawed in their closure outcome rationale.

This issue seems to be getting ignored as there is a hang up on a non-issue, which is a Distraction from the core issue. PicturePerfect666 (talk)

09:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse and WP:TROUT the nominator for attempting to relitigate the AFD, which is not the purpose of deletion reviews. The closing admin weighed the keep and delete votes properly, though closing as no consensus would have been a viable option (and possibly a better option) since solid arguments were made on both sides. Frank Anchor 14:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

The closing admin fundamentally did not follow process by building their closure rationale on faulty grounds: this being their claims that ‘23 new sources’ have pushed the article into passing GNG. This had to be demonstrated as faulty and not backed by the discussion or there is nothing to review. Simply dismissing as outside DRR feels like a misunderstanding of the issue at hand here. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 14:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLUDGEONing the process will not help your cause. You made your point, consensus disagrees. It’s time to move on. Frank Anchor 16:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

This is not bludgeoning, please do not make bad faith assumptions...this is purely explanation. I am feeling like i am not being taken seriously here and that I am being held in bad faith...when the exact opposite if true. Please engage with the actual substance as opposed to pondering the motives of the contributor. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 18:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

This is not a bad faith assumption, it is blatantly obvious bludgeoning, defined as when a user replies to many "!votes" or comments, arguing against that particular person's point of view. The person attempts to pick apart many comments from others with the goal of getting each person to change their "!vote". They always have to have the last word and may ignore any evidence that is counter to their point of view. This seems to be exactly what PicturePerfect666 is doing. Further, this person is assuming bad faith by accusing me of WP:BITING. I don't consider a user with several hundred edits and and a very well put together (though in my opinion incorrect) DRV nomination to be a "newcomer." Frank Anchor 20:41, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Are you suggesting being a newcomer therefore means you can't be competent or string an argument or sentence together? It is more about understanding the culture and how things work, not being intelligent or competent at drafting an argument. You have no way of knowing my real-world occupation. Simply having something well put together and well written does not negate if a new user is a new user. Also a 'few hundred edits' compared to thousands and thousands by others such as yourself who has nearly 23,000. Pales into dust when it comes to understanding the culture and how processes work. Coming in and stating how dare you respond and accusing of bludgeoning and not understanding how things work (when this falls in criteria 1) is not a helpful way for a new user to learn. If you think I have done wrong, be helpful not a hindrance. Provide constructive feedback, not carte blacnhe dismissal.

I also find you pushing this bludgeoning schtick as something which getting beyond bad faith now as it feels in my opinion you are effectively saying 'shut up and get lost, how dare you reply to things more than I or other would like', with no consideration whatsoever give to the content. Also, save the line of 'well there you go you must have the last word', please engage with me on the substance instead of being dismissive.

I have not seen any arguments which counter what I have posted it is simply 'the original admin was right' without explanation, other than the erroneous 'relitigating the AfD', which I have shown and demonstrated to be false. Also, the users stating that have not given reasons why this is so-called 'relitigating the AfD'.

I also note the actual substance here is still being wholly ignored as this issue goes to the heart of the closing rationale and understanding of the closing admin applied to the discussion.

Please I beg of all of you to engage on the substance here of the issue at hand instead of focusing your efforts in dismissing me for some reason. No wonder I feel like this is bite the newcomer. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 22:25, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I am feeling a lot of this all round from the people replying here; biting the newcomer. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 18:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Those who do not agree with you are not are not, by default, being WP:BITEY. You have felt the need to "explain" to every single reply on this review and at AfD, which is completely unnecessary and pretty in line with the definition of badgering. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 19:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC)